Brexit discussion thread II

Good morning!

Another day and another Brexit roundup

murphaph wrote: »

Democracy is sacred, so another referendum on the terms of the deal would be fine, right? (assuming the EU left an alternative on the table).

If the justification was reasonable I'd be amenable to it.

At present I can't see a reasonable justification.

The people are suffering electoral fatigue. We've already had a referendum on leaving or remaining in the EU. That question is settled.

We've had an election on approaches to Brexit. The two major parties campaigned to leave the single market.

Part of regarding democracy as nearly sacred means respecting what they have said without goading them to change their mind.

This article on the BBC tickled me a bit:

Business leaders and politicians asked former Foreign Secretary William Hague how the UK would "get round" the EU referendum result, he has revealed.

In the Daily Telegraph, Lord Hague said he was asked the question "for months... everywhere I went abroad".

He said he explained to them that "this really is a democracy".

Too right it is! A lot of people don't seem to understand that.

murphaph wrote: »

I again note that you can't seem to name a few EU regulations (preferably ones not initiated by London!) that you have an actual problem with.

You don't get to tell me how to phrase my support for Britain leaving the EU. I've told you why I support it at a high level.

The UK is required to cede far too much control to be in the European Union. From who can fish in your waters to who you can conduct free trade deals with. There is a broad level of control handed over and Britain would like more back.

I can agree with many EU directives and still object to the loss of control that is a part and parcel of membership.

murphaph wrote: »

The wishy washy sovereignty argument is a joke as any FTA means sacrificing sovereignty in this area to a supranational court of arbitration. If Canada and the EU disagree about something in CETA, the Canadians must submit themselves to the (non-Canadian) court of arbitration. This is no different than submitting to the ECJ except in scope. The principle of "giving up some sovereignty" is the same.

It isn't wishy washy. No free trade arrangement in the world that I know of requires handing over as much control as membership of the European Union.

No free trade deal I know of requires a carte blanche acceptance of migration. No free trade deal I know of requires an absolute acceptance of European Union law.
No free trade deal I know of prohibits forging other free trade agreements.

The idea that CETA is equivalent is absurd. The CETA court has 5 Canadian judges, 5 European judges, and 5 third country judges. Yes it requires being subject to trade arbitration but it doesn't require anywhere near the same loss of control. It gives equal representation.

murphaph wrote: »

That's the reality in 2017. Very few nations, except perhaps pariah states are truly sovereign. There's give and take through trade agreements and their courts of arbitration, through agreements like NATO (the UK is obliged to intervene if another NATO member is attacked, even if it doesn't like it).

This is a caricature of my position. My issue isn't with collaboration of any kind. My issue is with the amount of control that Brussels takes from member states.

I don't erect straw men in respect to your posts and I ask you not to do it with mine.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cooler heads on the EU side may favour a "transitional period", (i.e. give the UK a few years on the naughty step to think about what they have done), but many people are going to say "We're ready now... bye!".

The UK won't be coming back in. This is why the discussion is about working out a more appropriate relationship.

wes wrote: »

Ultra nationalists aren't any different than Religious extremist imo. There is no reasoning with them.

joeysoap wrote: »

Nationalism is tribalism, just doesn't sound so 'naked'

More sneering at people who voted for genuine reasons to leave the EU.

This condescension of populism isn't helpful. Instead of condescension, what is required is engagement.

Instead of seeing that people are concerned about migration - you see nationalist bigots.

Instead of seeing that people want to open up trade with a growing world around them you see little Englanders.

Instead of seeing working class people concerned about being undercut in certain sectors of work by low wage migration you see xenophobic bigotry.

The reason why populism or in short mass participation in democracy by those who feel left behind has come about is precisely because people have spent decades ignoring the concerns of normal people. I suspect people like you.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK looses by default if time runs out.

Given that the UK has said that Free Movement will stop in 2019 and how it's kinda important to EU side I can't see the EU spending a lot of extra time and effort jumping through hoops on this one.

You know when I said that some people would offer Jean Claude Juncker the crown jewels and the keys to Buckingham Palace? This is exactly why.

The UK needs to be calm and collected during the opening set of negotiations. They've got every reason to be confident.

If the EU don't want to spend the effort on the "creative solutions" that it proposes itself then I would say that tells us all we need to know about the EU. It would be willing to kick one of it's own member states in the gonads for the sake of punishing the UK.

That wouldn't be exactly an advertisement for the European Union would it?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the day Henry VIII went through Ireland with a policy of Surrender and Regrant.

Brexit will be like this. On leaving the EU all existing membership rights are gone. New ones will come with any new deal , if any.
Spain have made it very clear about putting it on the table.

lol, srsly? You're comparing the EU to a tyrant. You know that right? That's such an extreme comparison!

The people of Gibraltar have clearly offered their support to continued British rule. The UK won't be selling Gibraltar off to Spain. Most people, and I suspect many of the other countries in the European Council knew that suggestion was ridiculous from the word go. When I saw it I just rolled my eyes and thought typical Spain again!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Exactly London is spending on London, which makes sense for London.

But central spending on the regions is slowing down and personal borrowing is up. The UK appears to be splitting into a have/have not society both for individuals and regions.

You've cut both the bit in the post where I mentioned the benefits to the North and the Midlands with HS2 and the proposals for HS3 from my post. Being well connected is good for Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. And indeed with HS3 Liverpool, Hull, and Sheffield. In any case infrastructure spending which benefits the whole country has nothing to do with "EU funding".

steddyeddy wrote: »

Which Thatcher helped create. There would be no where near the same economic development in the UK without the EEC. The same goes for Ireland.

A more accurate assessment is that Thatcher had mixed views about the European project. It's true that she was a supporter of the EEC but she was clear that she was opposed to the Maastricht Treaty. She supported a referendum on the matter which John Major opposed.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How does this demonstrate the EU being undemocratic? How Switzerland chooses to implement (or not) the results of their own referendum is immaterial to the EU. What the showdown eventually came down to was essentially the EU simply standing firm - Switzerland signed an international agreement predicated on freedom of movement. They were perfectly entitled to implement a restriction on freedom of movement but that would invalidate the bilateral agreement. They were not "forced" into anything - the EU simply looked out for their own members and their interests and made clear that an international agreement must be respected in full.

This is simply the power that a large trading bloc wields when dealing with a much smaller one. I imagine you will find that the EU will respect the Brexit referendum vote as much as they respected the Swiss immigration one.

Did you read the article?

At present the single market regulations in Switzerland are maintained by bilateral treaties mirroring regulations into Swiss law. It is handled and interpreted domestically at present. The ECJ has no oversight over Switzerland under the current bilateral agreement.

In 2014 there was a referendum to ensure that there would be quotas on migration and legislation to ensure that Swiss nationals would be preferred in employment. It passed narrowly. The Swiss government ignored the people's verdict.

That isn't where we see the EU being anti-democratic. That's where we see the Swiss government let the people's vote down. Where the EU is anti-democratic is instead of respecting the result of the referendum they tell Switzerland that they must change their arrangement with them to be directly subject to the ECJ (without any Swiss representation) lest pesky Swiss democracy get in the way again.

The EU insist that the Swiss relationship tighten when the people want the opposite. It's further than the status quo. If that isn't anti-democratic I don't know what is. What would you call a relationship where one party insists on control without the other party's consent? I would call it an abusive relationship. Instead of forging a positive relationship based on consent the EU insist on forging an abusive one based on threats.

We're seeing the same thing unfold in the Brexit talks. Britain wants a positive but an appropriate relationship based on the consent of both parties. The EU side offer threats and fearmongering. The British government need to push back on any oversight of the ECJ for this reason.

You seem to think it's a virtue that the EU won't respect the result of the referendum. That speaks volumes about your view of democracy and if it's an accurate depiction of the EU it's not good advertising!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

What could change, though, is the freedom for UK based-teams to employ foreign players.

UK teams used to have quotas for this (as did teams in some other EU countries). These were imposed by the controlling bodies of the sports concerned, and effectively required clubs in the national league to field teams substantially made up of local players. There was either a quota for the number of foreign players you could have, or a salary cap for the total remuneration you could pay to foreign players, which forced you to choose between having one or two very prominent (and therefore very expensive) foreigners in the squad, or a larger number of second-string players.

Anyway, tghe legality of all this was challenged by a professional soccer player under EU non-discrimination law, and he won, which radically changed the professional sports scene throughout Europe.

With Brexit, the UK will be free, if it wishes, to allow sports leagues to reintroduce rules of this kind, clearing a way for a return to largely local teams. The humorously-titled Great Repeal Bill will transpose EU non-discrimination rules into UK law, but will give the relevant government minister a power to change them without reference to parliament, and presumably if an interested party sends him a large enough bung to persuade him to change them in this particular regard, he will do so.

I have no idea whether anyone has an economic interest in doing this, though.

yes, that is very true.

It is equally true that someone could bung the respective minister enough money to reword it so that one legged lesbians from Peru are allowed free access to the UK football and rugby leagues and no one else.

You can say what you like about the UK parliamentary system, but it is very good at weeding out those that accept bungs.

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed, it's based on things like number of International appearances, FIFA ranking of the country (think they only will allow players from the top 50), transfer fee being high, wages being high, current club being in a top league, how much they've played for their current club, if they've played in a continental competition etc. It's pretty much designed to only allow already proven (so no grabbing young prospects) and reasonably well known players to join.

If it ends up with no deal and/or they don't sort out exceptions for Football etc. in time, it's going to massively affect the Premier League as the pool of players they can pull from will be far lower. This will cause even more hugely inflated prices for English players, plus will likely devastate the SPL, NI and (assuming CTA etc. stays in place) the League of Ireland as anyone in those leagues won't need a work permit, hence all the half decent players will be pulled into the English leagues as that's where the money is.

the current system is based on there being no restrictions on eu players joining the premier league, so it is most likely overly restrictive on players outside of the eu. I would imagine there will be a certain amount of relaxation of these rules over time.

The idea is that with the money the premier league has, there is little or no incentive to develop home grown talent. It is much easier to just spalsh the cash and buy players at will, so there could be an argument that this will benefit UK football in general.

The premier league will no doubt be protected though, as it is a big export for the UK and in particular a certain Brexiteer called Rupert Murdoch.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

The same forces that resulted in Brexit are the same that continuously lobby for more home-grown talent, restriction on foreign players etc -- these are generally also favoured by FIFA, UEFA and the FA, but their hands have been tied by EU employment law. The current arrangement (of clubs requiring x amount of 'home-grown' players in their squads, and restrictions on recruiting younger players outside their catchment area) are a fudge agreed by all parties.

I imagine once they're free of EU law, there'll be renewed emphasis on restricting the number of non-British soccer players in their leagues. I expect this conversation to begin again in earnest after England crash out of Euro 2020 at the quarter final stages to Germany on penalties.

I doubt very much if Rupert Murdoch wants a restriction on home grown players. It is in his best interests for an unlimited number of foreign born players in the premier league to make it more attractive to Asian markets.